Sporting News MLB writers Jesse Spector and Ryan Fagan trade emails each week about a hot topic in the world of baseball. This week: What do you think of the one-game wild-card playoff idea?

JESSE: I don't like that Major League Baseball added a second wild-card team in each league last year. I don't like that fully one-third of teams now make the playoffs in a sport where true excellence used to be the only path to the World Series. I don't like that the best-of-five division series format enhances the randomness of results by putting a season on the line in a tiny sample size. I don't like that there are three divisions, leading to situations like last year where the Detroit Tigers, the seventh-best team in a 14-team league, can win the pennant.

The Pirates might like to use Francisco Liriano in a one-game playoff, but that would limit him in the NLDS. (AP Photo)

For all the gimmicky ideas that have expanded baseball's postseason, both diluting the field and expanding the October fun in one of the most self-contradictory parts of Bud Selig's legacy, the one-game playoff between the two wild-card teams is the best part.

It may seem contradictory on my own part that I complain about the sample size of a best-of-five, but heartily endorse a best-of-one. But these are wild-card teams. To my mind, they don't belong in the playoffs anyway. If you don't finish first, don't expect any favors, and pitting the wild-card teams against each other means that one goes home immediately, while the other has burned a pitcher heading into the real part of the postseason.

We were lucky enough to have five winner-take-all games in the division series and league championship series last year. We won't always get that kind of drama. If nothing else, the one-game playoff gets October started in the best possible way — a game where the winner moves on and the loser goes home.

RYAN: Hey, something we disagree on, on many levels.

I'm fine with the second wild-card team (or, at least, I acknowledge the reasons for its implementation as valid), but I think the one-game playoff "series" is up there with the All-Star Game deciding home-field advantage for the World Series on the list of baseball's worst decisions ever (seriously, that's insane).

So, no, I don't like it. Baseball has always been set up to give the most complete teams the best opportunity to win a World Series. That's why the season is 162 games. That's why the World Series and LCS are seven games. To win, you need multiple quality starting pitchers and depth should a position player get hurt or forget how to hit.

This one-game scenario is basically a coin flip. So many crazy things can happen that can adversely impact the outcome of a game — like last year, with the controversial infield fly rule during the Cardinals-Braves wild-card game. It's one starting pitcher having a great game or a horrible game. There's no time for adjustments, no allowances for shifting momentum.

The allure of a Game 7 comes not from the immediacy, but the journey to get to the winner-take-all circumstance. A one-game playoff is too contrived.

JESSE: By making the wild card a coin flip between two teams that were not good enough to win their division, and by altering the winner's pitching rotation for a playoff series, the one-game wild-card playoff furthers the case that the most complete team has the best chance to win the World Series. The wild card should be the last-chance saloon, and does not deserve equal footing with winning a division. If anything, by making the wild-card team burn a starter, that team has to prove its completeness in the division series by winning from a disadvantageous position.

I understand why the wild card exists, but that does not mean I have to like it. It's a contrived notion owing its existence to three-division leagues. What I would like to see, eventually, is four divisions of eight teams each (yes, this means expansion — it's been 15 years since the last round, and I think in another five years or so it will be a valid idea) with the top two teams in each division playing against each other in a best-of-seven division series, followed by the LCS and World Series. You would get just as many playoff games as you have now (possibly more), and have a better geographic spread in the later rounds. There are other ideas that would be preferable, as well, including doing away with the leagues altogether, but that's a discussion for another day.

I don't accept bad umpiring as a reason against a one-game playoff. Ask anyone in St. Louis about Don Denkinger. Bad umpiring is its own problem.

Yes, Game 7 is better than a one-and-done, but in this case, the journey is the 162 preceding games, bringing these wild card teams to one more opportunity to prove they belong among the elite.

RYAN: I'm a fan of the idea of getting rid of the divisions. That's one of my biggest issues with the whole one-game playoff scenario, the way it randomly punishes teams for geographical reasons. You brought up last year's Detroit Tigers, and that's the perfect example.

In 2012, the 88-win Tigers went directly into the best-of-five ALDS because they won the awful Central division, while the 93-win Orioles and 93-win Rangers had to play in the one-game wild-card playoff (and the 90-win Rays and 89-win Angels were completely left out of the postseason). That's not right, and it's easily correctable. I don't believe the wild-card teams (ideally, in a division-free setup, teams finishing with the fourth- and fifth-best records in the league) should be on equal footing, as was essentially the case during the one-wild-card-team era.

Baseball should make the wild-card playoff three games in three days, then jump right into the division series. Put those teams at a disadvantage, but allow for some semblance of baseball tradition to survive. This isn't the NCAA Tournament or the NFL playoffs, where every member of the team has an opportunity to contribute to a team's depth every game.

Or maybe it's just a branding thing. Maybe we should officially call the one-game debacle what it is—a play-in game. Maybe my hang-up is the belief that wild-card teams are really playoff teams that deserve a true playoff opportunity. Maybe you're right, that this is just a one-game opportunity to prove they really belong among the elite. Maybe. But probably not.

JESSE: I could maybe get on board with a best-of-three, although that's a lot of time off for the division-winning teams — I'm not sure whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. It also could be a logistical nightmare. Imagine a scenario where Tampa Bay and Oakland are the wild-card teams, and they're flying cross-country twice in about 36 hours.

Really, though, there are bigger problems with the current system than the fact that it's a glorified play-in game — which I think everyone outside of the MLB offices pretty much acknowledges is what it is. The Rays last year are an example, with 90 wins playing a much more difficult schedule than the 88-win Tigers. They were fourth in the East, so I don't have a problem with them being left out, but how about the rationale of some MVP voters that Miguel Cabrera came from a playoff team while Mike Trout did not, even when Trout's team had a better record?

The most important issue that makes the wild card problematic is the unbalanced schedule. If the Texas Rangers make it this year, it's going to be on the strength of having gone 17-2 against a Houston Astros team that barely fielded a major league roster in one of the greatest tank jobs this century. You can also point to the Cleveland Indians' 17-2 record against the moribund White Sox, but the Rays' most wins against a team are 13 against the Orioles, a contender to just about the very end. As much as MLB likes to feast off the bounty of Yankees-Red Sox revenues, teams from the AL East have to overcome a tremendous scheduling disparity to make the playoffs. It's another reason I would favor a four-division setup with the two best teams from each division going to the playoffs. At least, in that case, you're competing on even footing if the unbalanced schedule remains in place.

RYAN: Yeah, the Astros moving to the AL really changed things in that league. The Rangers went 17-2 against 'em, the A's went 14-5 and the Indians went 6-1 (Tampa Bay was 5-2). And, on a side note, maybe the saddest thing about the Angels' disappointing season is that they had a losing record (9-10) against Houston.

And that's almost as sad as a baseball playoff "series" lasting all of one game. Almost.